Application for Bail -Cr. M No.1564-P of 2017 (Bail granted to a repeat offender)

The petitioner, Saifullah, sought his release on bail on February 13, 2017.

Facts of the case are as follows: The complainant, Changaiz Khan reported at 5:30pm on February 13, 2017, while injured, at the DHQ hospital in Charsadda. He stated that due to a domestic dispute, Saifullah (the petitioner) fired at him with the intention to kill, as a result of which his left hand was injured. An FIR was registered against Saifullah, whose counsel contended that he had been falsely charged as there was no direct or circumstantial evidence on the available record to connect him to the commission of the offence. Since the FIR was registered under s.342 of the PPC, and the nature of the injury which transpired to the complainant did not support this, the FIR should have been registered under s.337-F(v) PPC. This the petitioner stated, entitled him to the concession of a bail.

The State counsel and the council for the complainant argued that the use of a deadly weapon and the empty shell casings recovered from the crime scene evidenced the intention on the part of the petitioner to kill the complainant, regardless of the injury which actually occurred. In addition to this the petitioner remained a fugitive from law for four months and therefore did not deserve the concession of a bail.

The Judge presiding over the matter stated that the record of the Plastic Surgery Unit Hayat Abad Medical Complex showed there to be a fracture of the left thumb of the complainant, which was recorded to be a fire arm injury and this in conjunction with additional evidence revealed there to be no intervention by any other individual, which left the complainant to be at the petitioner’s mercy. Considering this, the judge stated that the question of whether the petitioner’s intent was to kill the complainant required further inquiry and made an arguable case for the purpose of bail, especially since there was no expert opinion on the nature of the injury caused. In addition to this, the basic punishment in view of the medical report for the offence allegedly committed by the petitioner was either ‘arash or daman’ and the sentence of imprisonment for that was discretionary and likely to be awarded only if the behavior of the petitioner was unusual, cruel or indicative of misuse of force, authority or occasion. In response to the counsel for the state and the complainant’s arguments of the petitioner being a proclaimed offender for a period of four months, which vitiated any concessions, especially bail, the judge stated that he did not feel persuaded by the arguments and the evidence presented to agree with them. He cited cases of the Supreme court (Ibrahim Vs. Hayat Gul and others (1985 SCMR 382) and Muhammad Sadiq Vs. Sadiq and others (PLD 1985 SC 182) etc.) where called for further inquiry into the guilt of the accused person, while allowing him bail, as a right, which the Supreme court could not be refused, merely on account of the accused’s alleged abscondence, a factor only relevant to propriety.

The petitioner was therefore granted bail, subject to furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs.2,00,000/- with two additional sureties of the same amount each, to the satisfaction of the Illaqa/Duty Judicial Magistrate.